An Uncertain Future

The readings on Mutually Assured Destruction greatly disturbed me. While it may have been necessary, never have I thought it possible to examine nuclear war on such a grand scale. The document from RAD which discusses the scale of destruction in thermonuclear war, and McNamara’s characterization of the difference between losing thirty percent of America’s population versus sixty percent of America’s population is truly mind boggling. These discussions seem to provide several questions regarding morality. Most importantly, while there is clearly a game to be played in convincing ones enemy that America was not afraid to use nuclear weapons, would it every be moral to actually use nuclear weapons? It may be legitimate to use nuclear weapons for deterrence, but if the Soviet Union had invaded western Berlin would it really have been worth it to respond with nuclear weapons as promised? Perhaps I simply do not have the stomach to set defense policy, but I cannot think of a situation where the use of nuclear weapons would be the right thing to do.

The “no cities” strategy proposed by McNamara clearly outlines the absurdity of the justification of nuclear politics. It is very difficult to envision a war in which nuclear attacks against military targets could be politely exchanged between two enemies, with the rest of the civilization being saved. If nuclear war ever does break out, we can only assume that all rational thought will be missing from at least one of the nations involved. Further, McNamara’s explanation of the philosophy of mutually assured destruction is fascinating. It appeared that McNamara suggested that the United States would never use nuclear weapons, but that it had to convince the Soviet Union that it was willing to use nuclear weapons. What many of American leaders may have failed to see during the Cold War was that by trying to convince the Soviet Union that they were ready to use nuclear weapons, they convinced the American public and probably themselves as well. Robert McNamara is clearly an intelligent man and in these conversations he appears rational, but ultimately he was overtaken by Cold War sensibilities. America’s leaders may have seen their strategies as a way to avoid war, but the continued reexamination of strategies such as the “no cities policy”, planning for tens of million of deaths, and mutually assured destruction created a great deal of momentum at the pentagon and throughout America, that normalized the discussion of nuclear war.

While members of the Kennedy administration may have taken risks in their foreign policy, they at least did so by trying to proceed with caution. It would be difficult to say the same for the Reagan administration. In President Reagan’s discussions of a needed arms build up and “star wars”, Reagan dangerously raises the stakes in the cold war. By suggesting that America was losing the Cold War Reagan pursued enormous defense increases that could have brought about panic in the Soviet Union. Further, Star Wars, with little scientific credibility, had the potential to eliminate the fragile stability there was in the nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union. Now, with America’s clear victory in the cold war, it is easy to look back and applaud Reagan for his rhetoric that was unnecessarily aggressive and often distant from reality. But simply because Reagan’s escalation of the cold war turned out ok does not mean that it couldn’t have ended disastrously. If the Soviet Union had been lead by someone other than Gorbachev, a desperate Soviet Union may have resorted to violence, and perhaps even nuclear war as a desperate attempt to maintain its superpower status.

I am not sure what I would have done if I were one of the leaders mentioned in this reading. It is easy to criticize their behavior, but it is much harder to say what they should have done and stood for. Kennedy and Khrushchev can at least be admired for their last minute realization of the consequences of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. Over the last fifty years these men have inherited a nuclear world and it seems difficult to tell whether they were simply doing the best they could, or whether they were enabling a future nuclear holocaust (or both). While I understand that the issues regarding mutually assured destruction and nuclear proliferation are complex, I still believe the leaders of the past fundamentally failed their constituents, and that the leaders of today can make a greater effort in eliminating the possibility of nuclear war.

The Impact of the Highly Improbable

In previous blogs I have outlined my skepticism of both the nuclear arms buildup and the unfounded belief that science can solve all problems. While it may seem hypocritical to suggest that the implementation of nuclear power has gotten a raw deal, it appears that the potential rewards of nuclear power may outweigh the risks. In the readings for today, and the explanation of nuclear power plants provided by Professor Maleki, it is clear that nuclear power has its downsides. Fission reactors provide radioactive waste and the lingering possibility of a nuclear meltdown deeply frightens many. Nevertheless, the readings for today emphasize the useful possibilities of nuclear power and the relatively small chance of a deadly nuclear accident.

In recent years America’s high oil consumption has come under scrutiny for its negative effects on the environment, and its propping up of disgraceful Middle East regimes. Ultimately, it must be asked how the risks regarding nuclear power add up against the downsides of our current energy sources. In the evaluation of risks involving nuclear power, it is implied that there is a gap between the public perception and reality. Understandably many Americans developed skepticism of anything nuclear during the cold war. Additionally, there is clearly a sense of uncertainty in the readings about whether nuclear power will be safe enough to use on a large scale. But in comparing nuclear power to the airline industry (in which many made the argument that the skies could never contains the amount of flights seen today without multiple disasters) it seems as though the increased use of nuclear power and developments of its technology might make it safer. In a future where our energy needs will continue to rise, and as the dependability and detrimental effects of our current energy sources become increasingly questionable, perhaps nuclear power can be a part of the solution.

The fear centered on the possibility of a meltdown has spoken louder than some scientist’s statistics suggesting that radioactive waste is fairly easy to deal with, and the chances of an all out nuclear disaster are very low. The possibility of an unlikely catastrophe often distorts reality in our 24/7 T.V.- news culture. I am still not sure whether nuclear power is the answer to our energy problems, but the readings convinced me that it is at least possible. If we can produce cheap and efficient energy with relatively low side effects we owe it to ourselves to debate and experiment. In the videos Professor Walker showed us a couple of weeks ago I can see how nuclear physicists were too optimistic about what technology could do. Yet, perhaps with a second nuclear age there is still a possibility that nuclear power can improve America’s consumption of energy. I fear that even the discussion of nuclear power is clouded by those who have let fear close their minds. Average Americans support policies of questionable morality in our foreign policy in order to stop terrorism at all costs. Yet, it appears that this fear is somewhat irrational, as the chance of an individual being killed in a terrorist attack is incredibly small. Hysteria and fear can push humanity to be too aggressive, as we have seen in the Cold War and in the War on Terror, but it can also make humanity too cautious. We shouldn’t let irrational fear stop us from at least exploring the possibilities of nuclear power; so that we can try to make something good out of the splitting of the atom.